Wikipedia:Peer review/Mammal/archive2

Mammal
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see this article reach GA-class, and possibly FA. I've been working on it over the (Memorial day) weekend and it was already a well-developed article, so it just needed some references and some expansion (which was easy considering this is a summary of a bunch of other articles). Copyediting and some reference work are needed here before I can nominate this for GAN.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to critique expect I feel like the social structure can get too specific. Why not talk about social/reproduction systems in general (polygyny, monogamy, fission-fusion)? Why devote a paragraph to the social life of one species (vampire bat)? I also feel the hybrid section is unneeded. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, except the hybrid section could be incorporated in prose as one or two paragraphs into the reproduction section. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Funkmonk: the paragraph on vampire bats is an example of a hierarchical system. Also, should reproductive behaviour be a subheading under the Reproduction section?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But why not talk about hierarchical systems in general? Yes you can give examples but don't get into too much detail on a single species for such a broad and diverse subject. I think the first two paragraphs better refect this. I also don't like the undue weight given to a one study on rhesus monkey. As for reproduction, that section seems to be more on the biology rather then behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed the hierarchy paragraph  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent article, I've seen much lesser articles get approved for GA, I think this is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. An expert on the subject (someone with academic credentials and published works on the subject, maybe you?) could maybe give it a once-over and correct any glaring mistakes. As a layman this article seems very well-cited and comprehensive. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed a tiny bit of self-referential wording, peacock words, and added material about accepted classification systems. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Should probably add information on the circulatory and digestive systems. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What about circulation? LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It could also use more images of marsupials and monotromes LittleJerry (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Added wombat image to fossorial section  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the article also needs discussion of senses and perhaps a few sentences on waste products (which is different from other amniotes). After these are added, I feel the article will be mostly complete. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Senses are extremely varied between mammals. Sight, for example, can be impeccable in some mammals, whereas others don't even have eyes. Not really sure what aspect of mammal waste is unique  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then you should at least include waste since they shared by all mammals and are different from birds and reptiles. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing I got is mammal feces is brown  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't know about how bird and reptiles produce one semi-solid mass while mammal excrete feces and urine separately? LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Monotremes and marsupials have a cloaca  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly seems GA-standard, probably FA. Some paras are much too long, including one in the lead, which is already 5 paras long (but 1 and 2 could be merged). There could be more pics. For FA denser refs probably needed - eg the 4 lines ending "This suggests that the placenta was a later development." have no ref, but generally seems ok. I haven't done a detailed read-through. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)